Interlinear

Commentary

Luke 2:22 is the twenty second verse of the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament. It contains an account of Mary's purification.

αὐτῆς, αὐτῶν, or αὐτοῦ?

Many modern translations have “their purification” instead of the King James Version reading “her purification.” This creates an exegetical problem, because Mary’s purification was required by law forty days after the birth of a son (eighty days after the birth of a daughter), whereas Leviticus 12:2-4 only has the woman in view, not her husband or child. This difference can implicate that Jesus required purification for sin, or on the other hand it can disagree with the OT Law which required only a woman to go through ceremonial purification after a child birth, not the man, if Joseph is in view; making this reading an error due to basic theological reasons.

Leviticus 12:2-4 reads:

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled (Leviticus 12:2-4)

Leviticus reveals to us in verse 2 that it is "her", the woman, not the child, that is "unclean", as a result, she must "continue in the blood of her purifying" in verse 4. It is entirely valid to allow the Old Testament to help an editor decide from the evidence what is the correct rendering in the variants of the New Testament evidence.

αὐτῆς - her

αὐτῶν - their

According to the law of Moses

Luke 2:22 says:

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.

This is clearly a reference to Leviticus 12:6-8

6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7 - Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8 - And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her and she shall be clean."

Only the mother was to bring a sacrifice and only the woman was to have an atonement made for her and thus be cleansed - not the child too.

Tatian's Diatessaron

Some copies of Tatian's Diatessaron (160-175 A.D.) read:

"that the child's mother should do her purification"

There is scholarly uncertainty about what language Tatian used for its original composition, whether Syriac or Greek. Modern scholarship tends to favour a Syriac origin; but even so, the exercise must have been repeated in Greek very shortly afterwards—probably by Tatian himself. An Old Latin version of Tatian's Syriac text appears to have circulated in the West from the late 2nd century.

Cyril of Alexandria

"After His circumcision, she next waits for the time of her purification: and when the days were fulfilled, and the fortieth was the full time, God the Word, Who sitteth by the Father's side, is carried up to Jerusalem, and brought into the Father's presence in human nature like unto us, and by the shadow of the law is numbered among the firstborn. For even before the Incarnation the firstborn were holy, and consecrated to God, being sacrificed to Him according to the law" (through a Syriac translation) [3]

Cyril was also quoted given through Aquinas saying:

Next after the circumcision they wait for the time of purification, as ii is said, And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were come. [4]

Aquinas

Aquinas has a Greek expositor reference:

GREEK EXPOSTIOR:

Or again, Luke is here describing the time before the descent to Egypt, for before her purification Joseph had not taken Mary there But before they went down into Egypt, they were not told by God to go to Nazareth

Jerome

Jerome, in 383 A.D. wrote a tract called Against Helvidius which is also in The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Section 12 which has:

At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons." [5]

Augustine

Augustine, in his Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2, Chapter 5 has:

When the days of her (His mother’s) purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord,

Augustine, in his Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2, Chapter 11 has:

when they had gone with Him to Jerusalem after the purification of His mother, and when those things had been performed in the temple which are recounted by Luke,

Pseudo-Matthew

Now, after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled according to the law of Moses [6]

Anglo Saxon

Her purification is the reading of both remaining copies we have of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels. One is manuscript 140 and is in the Corpus Christi College. It is dated at 1000 A.D. and as written by Aelfric. The other Anglo Saxon Gospel manuscript is Number 38 and is in the Bodleian Library and is dated at around 1200 A.D. and the author is unknown:

Minuscule 76

The 14th century manuscript Minuscule 76 is sometimes erroneously cited as the only known Greek copy to read in Luke 2:22 αὐτῆς with the Complutensian Polyglot. However according to Caspar Rene Gregory who personally viewed the manuscript it actually reads αὐτῶν and not αὐτῆς.

Theodore Beza

In the footnote of Beza's 1598 Greek and Latin New Testament he writes concerning αὐτῆς:

Of Mary, αὐτῆς,. In the Vulgate: 'eius' ('of him/her'), apparently 'of Mary'. For it is proper to fulfil the Law, although Mary after Christ's birth would be all the more sanctified. In any case, we have expressed the antecedent itself in full, in order to avoid any ambiguity. Most manuscripts [codices] have αὐτῶν, and thus Origen reads also, followed by Erasmus. But I fail to see how this could fit, while the law of purification only concerns the mother. And so I prefer to follow the old edition [the Vulgate] with which the Complutensian edition agrees.

John Gill

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible says:

And when the days of purification,.... Of the Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord; though most copies read, "of their purification"; and so read the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, including both Mary and Jesus: and now, though Mary was not polluted by the conception, bearing, and bringing forth of Jesus, that holy thing born of her; yet inasmuch as she was in the account of the law clean; and though Jesus had no impurity in his nature, yet seeing he was made sin for his people, both came under this law of purification, which was for the sake of the son or daughter, as well as for the mother; though our reading, and which is according to the Complutensian edition, best agrees with the Hebrew phrase, ימי טחרה, the days of her purifying or purification, in Leviticus 12:4.

Daniel Mace

Daniel Mace in 1729 completely paraphrased the verse but he had the right teaching. His translation says:

At length the time appointed by the law of Moses for the purification of women being accomplish'd, they carried the infant to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, according as his law directs.

Webster

The 1833 Webster bible has:

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord;

Edward Hills

Under the subheading of The Editions of the Textus Receptus Compared — Their Differences Listed Hills has:

The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) (55) and Hoskier (1890). (56) The following are some of the most important of these differences.

He then has:

Luke 2:22 their purification, Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts. Her purification, Beza, King James Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).

It is interesting to see the plagiarism in James White's book the King James Only Controversy where he has:

their purification, Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts. Her purification, Beza, King James Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?) (Hills)

The only difference between Hills (1956) and White (1995) is the M is expanded to majority, Elziver is omitted by White, and the question mark after Vulgate is gone.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Text critics Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger and Wikgren, gave this reading a “C” reading. “...The letter C means that there is a considerable
degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading,....” [Introduction to The Greek New Testament, Third edition, xiii]. This commentary based on the UBS3 says:

The reading αὐτῶν, which is by far the best attested reading, is difficult for the Law prescribes no ritual of purification for the husband. The reading αὐτῆς (which, in the editions of Theodore Beza, lies behind the AV.) is a late correction made by a punctilious scribe. The Western reading αὐτοῦ can be regarded as a transcriptional error for αὐτῶν (in cursive Greek script the pronoun was abbreviated αὐτ with the termination expressed by a “shorthand” stroke), or as a deliberate modification, introduced because afterwards (ver. 27) Jesus is the object of the presentation in the Temple (B. M. Metzger, op. cit., p. 134).

UBS4

In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, UBS4, Luke 2:22 is no longer discussedmeaning that the reading of αὐτῶν is accepted although they
earlier admitted in the UBS3 that “...the attested reading is difficult...”

Denis Gibson

Denis Gibson, M.Th., says

“These variations are proof that this text [has] been tampered with at some time in the past” [It’s Neither “Her” Nor “Thier” (sic.) Or Is It?]

F.W. Farrar

F.W. Farrar’s St.Luke on page 70 says “2:22. Her purification.

“Rather their purification. The reading autees, her, of the Received Text is almost unsupported. All the Uncials read autoon, ‘their,’ except D, which probably by oversight reads autou, his. Strictly speaking, the child was never purified, but only the mother.”

But if “strictly speaking” only the mother was purified, this should clearly reveal an error in the critical text and not the received text.

Peter Ruckman

In a reply to James White, Peter Ruckman said:

Here, “Her purification” is an “error” according to all Alexandrians for the Greek texts say “their purification”. Thus the NIV and NASV are correct in saying “THEIR purification.” The only thing wrong with this is that it is a lie. Joseph didn’t need any purification according to the Biblical source for the Biblical quotation (Leviticus 12). Only the WOMAN needed to be purified; look at it. [9]

Here the variant is small but the difference is profound. The Authorized Version and Textus Receptus (Beza's edition and Elzevir's edition) use the phrase, "of her purification" (katharismou autes). Modern versions and the Critical Text read, "of their purification" (katharismou auton). Contextually, the reading must stand as reflected in the KJV. Under the Levitical Law a woman was considered unclean after giving birth and needed purification. The passage in Leviticus 12: 2-4 reads,

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.​

The citation is quite clear: this was "her purifying" and not the purifying of both mother and child. Therefore, the Authorized Version and the Greek Textus Receptus agree with the Levitical Law.

To offset this point, some have suggested that the word them is a reference to Mary and Joseph. The argument is that since Joseph and Mary are mentioned in verse 16 and referred to in the second half of verse 22, the word them referred to the married couple. The obvious doctrinal problem with this is that under the Law of Moses, as set forth in Leviticus 12, the woman and not the husband needed purification after giving birth. The best contextual reading agrees with the Authorized Version, as it would support both the Old Testament Law and the actions presented in Luke's Gospel.[1]

Admittedly, the Greek support now known for the reading as found in the Textus Receptus is extremely poor. It is found in a few Greek minuscules such as 76 and a few others.[2]​ There is an additional textual variant within the Greek manuscripts. Codex D05 (sixth century), which is highly acclaimed among textual scholars, has the reading autou (of it). While the reading autns (of her) is preferred, both readings stand in the genitive singular and not the plural as auton (of them). Additionally, we find the Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic Coptic versions supporting 2174, and D.

The reading her purification has a great deal of textual support among the Latin witnesses. The majority of all Latin manuscripts read, et postquam postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem mosi (And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses). The Latin word eius (or ejus) means her and stands in the feminine genitive singular, thus of her. In order to have the translation of them, the Latin texts would have to use the word eorum. When we consider the age and the number of extant Latin manuscripts, we find the reading is both ancient and well substantiated. It is also interesting to note that the reading has some support in the forged Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (possible third century). Written in Latin, it allows us to see that the purification spoken of in Luke 2:22 was a reference to Mary. Pseudo-Matthew reads: "Now, after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled according to the law of Moses, then Joseph took the infant to the temple of the Lord" (15:1).

Notes:

1. There is a debate among textual critics regarding eclecticism. Most support what is commonly called "reasoned eclecticism" which tends to focus on the age and number of existing Greek manuscripts. However, scholars such as G. D. Kilpatrick and J. K. Elliot promote "rigorous eclecticism" which focuses on the internal evidence above the external textual evidence. Therefore, according to this type of eclecticism, any textual variant regardless of age or number could conceivably be the correct reading if the internal evidence is sufficient. See Kilpatrick, The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1990, pp. 33-52.

2. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956; reprint, Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 221.​

Kevin James

Although most TR advocates disagree with Aramaic Primacy, Kevin James' The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship has an interesting point that can be applied to the transmission of the text:

An original Aramaic copy of Luke can also give a possible answer. In Aramaic, the letters for “his” or “her” are the same: THRH. The difference in meaning is determined by the vowels assigned to these four letters; “her” purification is theRaH while “his” purification is theRayH (Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon,1979, p. 372; Alger F. Johns, A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, Andrews Univ. Press, 1982, pp. 6, 13). It is easy to see how an early copyist engaged in the translation of an Aramaic Luke into Greek, could mistakenly write “his” for “her” purification. Later copyists, finding both, wrote “their.” (p. 70)​

In his book Defending the King James Bible, D. A. Waite has on page 160-161:

The word her is changed to their, thus making the Lord Jesus Christ One Who needed "purification," and therefore was a sinner! This is unthinkable! One of these perversions was used in 1991, in my home church in the Christmas program they were using, making Christ a sinner thereby! It also demeaned the Lord Jesus in its rendering of Micah 5:2. I hope you will check in advance your own church's CHRISTMAS and EASTER programs. Unless they use the KING JAMES BIBLE, they will be in serious doctrinal trouble! This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology. At this point, these Greek texts and these English versions are theologically deficient, whereas the Textus Receptus and the KING JAMES BIBLE are theologically superior. (Defending the King James Bible, p. 160-161).

James White has a list in his book entitled “The Textus Receptus against the Textus Receptus”. He lists Luke 2:22 and has

their purification[60],

Erasmus

Stephanus, M

her purification

Beza, KJV, Complutensian,

76, and a few Greek minuscules,

Vulgate

At their purification, the footnote reads:

It is interesting to note that D. A. Waite in a debate with me alleged that this reading of Luke 2:22 (Found in Erasmus, Stephanus, and the M text-type) makes Christ a sinner. Note his word from his book, p. 163:

The word her is changed to their, thus making the Lord Jesus Christ One Who needed "purification," and therefore was a sinner! This is unthinkable! One of these perversions was used in 1991, in my home church in the Christmas program they were using, making Christ a sinner thereby!...I hope you will check in advance your own church's CHRISTMAS and EASTER programs. Unless they use the KING JAMES BIBLE, they will be in serious doctrinal trouble! (King James Only Controversy, second edition, p. 112).

In a debate with Doug Wilson James White said:

If one asserts that we should read "her" instead of "their" at Luke 2:22, that is changing Scripture, for no one reading Luke in Greek for the first 1400 years of the Church would have seen this "new" and novel reading. [10]

1611 And when the dayes of her purification according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord, (King James Version)

1729 At length the time appointed by the law of Moses for the purification of women being accomplish'd, they carried the infant to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, according as his law directs, (Mace New Testament)

1745 And when the days of the purification it self, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, (Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament)

1769 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (King James Version - Benjamin Blayney)

1770 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord: (Worsley Version by John Worsley)

1790 And when the days of purification were fulfilled according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Wesley Version by John Wesley)

1795 And when the days of her purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (A Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by Thomas Haweis)

1833 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Webster Version - by Noah Webster)

1835 And when the time of their purification was expired, they carried him to Jerusalem, as the law of Moses appoints, to present him to the Lord; (Living Oracles by Alexander Campbell)

1849 And when were completed, the days of their purification according to the law of Musha, they carried him up to Urishlem, to present him before the Lord: (Etheridge Translation by John Etheridge)

1858 And when the days of their purification were completed according to the law of Moses, they carried him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, (The New Testament Translated from the Original Greek by Leicester Sawyer)

1865 And when the days of their purification, according to the law of Moses, were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, (The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 1865 by American Bible Union)

1869 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, (Noyes Translation by George Noyes)

1885 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (Revised Version also called English Revised Version - Charles Ellicott editor)

1890 And when the days were fulfilled for their purifying according to the law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem to present [him] to the Lord (Darby Version 1890 by John Darby)

1902 And, when the days of their purification, according to the law of Moses, were fulfilled, they took him up into Jerusalem, to present [him] unto the Lord,–– (The Emphasised Bible Rotherham Version)

1902 And when the days of their purification were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they carried him up into Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, (Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek by William Godbey)

1904 And, when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord, (The New Testament: Revised and Translated by Adolphus Worrell)

1904 When the period of purification of mother and child, enjoined by the Law of Moses, came to an end, his parents took the child up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, (Twentieth Century New Testament by Ernest Malan and Mary Higgs)

1911 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Syrus Scofield)

1912 And when the days for their purification appointed by the Law of Moses had passed, they took Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord— (Weymouth New Testament)

1918 And when the days of their purification had been completed, according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, (The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript by Henry Anderson)